East-West Gateway Underestimates City Population by Nearly 25,000!!!
The City of St. Louis and the U.S. Census Bureau agree on the population of St. Louis at 350,705 as of July 2004. But something is very wrong. Not that they agree, but that the East-West Gateway Council of Governments has failed to recognized these figures in their estimates affecting transportation spending.
Last year the mayor’s office successfully challenged the census bureau’s figures to show the 2003 population at just over 348,000. So why is it that when East-West Gateway accepted their new transportation study earlier this year they based it on the outdated estimates shown at left? With new housing downtown and throughout the city their numbers are a good 25,000 less than those used by the city and the census bureau.
From MayorSlay.com
Housing production in the City is still accelerating. In the first nine months of this year, the production of new housing units has already doubled last year’s output.
Downtown is coming alive — and staying awake later. Neighborhoods like the CWE and Lafayette Square have become the best places to live in the entire region. Other neighborhoods that have not seen new investment in a very long time are being rebuilt and repopulated.
With new residents are coming new retail – and new employers. It is impossible to overcome 50 years of decline in a short period of time. But, we have come a long way already.
People are noticing.
We are in the early stages of the long reversal of the last half century. I think the next 15-20 years we will see St. Louis regain population. We’ll never again reach the 850,000+ of the mid 50’s, nor should we. The city was over crowed then and we’ve taken so much land since then for highways and big box retail that we simply don’t have the land for that many people. I’d be happy with a city population of 500,000.
But look again at the chart. The major multi-jurisdictional planning agency for the region says our population is less than it actually is and is on the decline for the next five years. They estimate we’ll have a slow climb back up to a number less than what we currently have. This is the very model that says we need to have a new $1 billion dollar bridge over the Mississippi River.
The mayor’s office is quick to challenge the census bureau on population figures but they don’t seem so inclined to do so when it is the agency that hands out federal money. I also think if the real figures were used in the model and they showed the population increasing in the city East-West Gateway would have a harder time trying to justify the new bridge — which the mayor’s office supports. I think those population figures are being allowed to kept low until funding for the bridge is secured and suddenly we’ll see a correction.
The bigger question is not who has what number now but what number should we be striving for and by when?
– Steve
Steve:
Where did you get this table, specifically? From “Where We Stand”? If so, it might be a projection dataset that’s two years old. I just can’t tell the exact source.
Personally, I feel like all these estimates are just that – estimates! Thus they should be taken with a grain of salt. Or perhaps a full salt shaker. 😉
The mayor’s attempts to use the estimates for political gain really bug me. These annual estimates and projections are pretty much meaningless except for that. Only the 2010 Census will matter in terms of allocation of Federal funds and legislative representation.
I don’t know whether the City’s population is increasing. Nobody really does. Building permits are not the best measures; the IRS data is probably better, but misses a lot of people who aren’t required to file tax forms.
I am not an expert at statistics and demographic estimates, however. Somebody like Dave Laslo at UMSL or Russ Signorino at the United Way could probably give a better summary of these issues. Maybe you should drop by a meeting of the American Statistical Association – St. Louis chapter some time?
[REPLY – This table is from the 2030 Legacy transportation plan adopted earlier this year by East-West Gateway so I hope the data used is not two years old. A statistical meetings sounds… uh…. really interesting…. – SLP]
I think the EWG estimates are more conservative, even more so than the Census Bureau. Conservative estimates tend to look more at recent trends in migration and vital records, instead of housing data.
The City has challenged the Census estimates by using housing permit figures, showing an increase in housing units. But to assume that this housing increase is an increase in population, you have to weigh whether the number of new units of likely smaller households are enough to offset the out-migration of typically larger households.
The continuing decline in public school enrollment may be a warning sign that our City could be increasing in overall housing units, but not population. In other words, for a net positive effect, you need to attract more childless families and singles to compensate for a loss in families with children.
But the revised estimates are still obviously good news for the City, even if there is still an actual slight net decrease or very little change in population. For the road to a larger population may easily be paved with first reversing the net loss of households.
Also note that your tables contain projections of future population, not estimates of recent or current population. Thus, estimates are almost always closer to the mark than projections.
To project population, you have to predict how a birth cohort will act as it ages. For example, if many youths raised in St. Louis County, increasingly decide not to return or remain in the County following college elsewhere or when forming their own household, then out-migration could accelerate in the County. Likewise, if young adults living in the City were to increasingly remain in the City more so than previous trends, or even older adults moving back to the City than previous trends for such age group, then the City could reap the benefit.
In all, it’s harder to project than estimate, because you conservatively assume trends remain on their same trajectory, when clearly trends can change dramatically. The good news then, is that 2005 estimates challenge the previously more conservative trajectory for the City’s future.
[REPLY – I think you’ve hit on something. The assumption that trends remain the same as they have. When making this assumptions I think we can influence the outcome, at least to a degree. That is, if we assume the trend of people living in the suburbs and therefore plan transportation spending to support that then people will end up living in the suburbs. – SLP]